5 ms·
> This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox. Oof, so even people that should really know better are now equ
by lxgr 6mo ago
> This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox.
Oof, so even people that should really know better are now equating MV3 with "no more ad blocking"? I think at this point the entire thing just needs to be renamed.
(Only Chrome removed the request blocking API from their MV3 implementation; Firefox did not.)
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- stavros 6mo agoDid Vivaldi? Or Brave? Will uBlock work properly with Mv3 and request blocking?
- lxgr 6mo agoOf course everything based on Chromium will inherit most of Chrome's decisions, including this one. (Unless they fork their entire web extension implementation and maintain the fork forever.)
- stavros 6mo agoYeah but then "only Chrome" is misleading, when it's actually "every major browser except Firefox".
- ahartmetz 6mo agoSafari isn't exactly non-major. By the way, it seems like WebKit Embedded (~resource-efficient Linux port) has regained some steam due to Igalia's work over the last two years or so.
- lxgr 6mo agoA single engine/implementation deprecated the feature. I don’t think this is particularly misleading in a hacker news context.
- topranks 6mo agoEvery major browser except Firefox is Chrome
- zarzavat 6mo agoBrave still supports UBo though. How long they can maintain that support is an open question.
- stavros 6mo agoNon-Chrome Chromium browsers should band together and support request blocking for Mv3 at this point. It would be one compelling feature that differentiates them from Chrome.
- jeroenhd 6mo agoThe people who know better should also know that tech social media was flooded with people not knowing what they were talking about mentioning manifest versions. It wouldn't be the first time tech gossip rags would take something Mozilla did out of proportion to make outrage videos about that become a hit on Reddit. When Mozilla added some weird AI thing (I think it was page summaries?) I was asked by people whose algorithm picked up this nonsense whether it'd be better for their privacy to switch back to Chrome or Edge.
- swed420 6mo ago> It wouldn't be the first time tech gossip rags would take something Mozilla did out of proportion to make outrage videos about that become a hit on Reddit. Sounds like the issue here is paid social media platforms, where everybody is looking for ways to differentiate their slop from the rest. It would be weird to expect a different outcome.
- msla 6mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Manifest_V3_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Manifest_V3_2 > However, DeclarativeWebRequest is limited in the number of rules that may be set, and the types of expressions that may be used.[336] Additionally, the prohibition of remotely-hosted code will restrict the ability for filter lists to be updated independently of the extension itself. As the Chrome Web Store review process has an invariable length, filter lists may not be updated in a timely fashion.[337][338] Is that not true?
- lxgr 6mo agoIt is, but it’s not relevant. Firefox offers both APIs.
- DangitBobby 6mo agoWe shouldn't equate it with "no more ad blocking" because it didn't ship with an attempt to make ad blockers less effective or because that's not all it shipped with?
- ragall 6mo ago"This will ensure certain types of add-ons, like ad-blockers, continue to work best in Firefox" clearly means that MV3 makes ad blocking worse, not entirely disabled. How can you get "no more ad blocking" out of that ?
- lxgr 6mo agoAgain, no. MV3 (the specification) does not do anything to ad blocking. Chrome's implementation of MV3 does. For precision, I should have said "significantly worse ad blocking", not exaggerated as "no more ad blocking".
- ragall 6mo agoThis is all sophistry. The spec is irrelevant, what matters is only the implementation and the fact that Chrome has a crushing dominance.
- inquirerGeneral 6mo ago[dead]